Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTUSTMEIT BOARD Award No. 61~r3
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 62136
 2-SLSF-SMW-'73
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 22, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Sheet Metal. Workers)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimants position at Fort Smith, Arkansas was abolished effective May 81. He exercised hips senicvity to establish his position at Tulsa, Oklahoma effective June 1. Starting June 1, claimant was assigned to various points in the divtsion in the performance of his duties among which was Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Rule 10 of the controlling agreement referring to work away from home station states in part: "Where meals and lodging are not provided by the Company, actual necessary expenses will be allowed."
When claimant's home station was at Fort Smith, he maintained his family residence there. When he established his position at Tulsa, his family residence continued to be at Fort Smith. When claimant was assigned to work at or in the vicinity of Fort Smith after June 1, he slept and ate soap of his meals at his family residence in Fort Smtth.
 Form 1 Avard No. 6+~
 Page 2 Docket No. 62 .,

It is agreed that claimant's home station became Tulsa and that he is entitled to actual necessary expenses while on duty away from Tulsa, including assignments at Fort Smith. However, the carrier objects to paying for expenses claineed by the employe as necessary, for sleeping and eating in his own home fn Fort Smith. The carrier in its submission also objects to the expenses claimed for October as not processed timely.

 The carrier's objection to October expenses will be disregarded. The objection was not-raised on the property. Correspondence in the processing of the claims, attached as exhibits, includes reference to October and timely claim is made for this continuing claim which the Organization asserts is in violation of Rule 10.

 The correspondence attached as exhibits makes it clear that the carrier is not violating Rule 10, because it has recognized its obligation to pay actual necessary expenses and has offered to do so, minus the charges for lodging and meals at the claimant's home at Fort Smith.

 We agree with that part of Award 5001 which the Organization has argued in its favor which states: "--- the fact that claimant maintained a home for his family and himself at St Cloud is not controlling. He is entitled under Rule 10 to an allowance for actual expenses incurred while in St Cloud whether or not , he slept or dined in his own home there." We do not interpret this to mean nor (, does the statement say that the employe would be paid for sleeping anal dining at his own home as an actual necessary expenses- If the carrier had provided quarters for sleeping and had provided a place for meals in St Cloud, the employe wcald hot have incurred actuals necessary expense if he chose to sloop ana eat at re=e. This is also true of the present case. In addition, the carrier would be obliged to pay claimant for sleeping at a motel and eating at a restaurant in Fort Smith as actual and necessary expenses, even though he still Mintains a hogi there.
Award 5001, in addition to the part argued by the organization goes on to deal with the real issue in this case and we accept the reasoning stated as follows: "The defect in Petitioner's case is that there is no breakdown or analysis as to w1nt out-of-pocket expenses were incurred for claimant's own =als and lodging at his house --- we are not entitled' to consider any equities or to speculate on what the actual necessary expenses might have been. Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for only out-of-pocket expenses of his meals and lodging and not: for some'arbitrnry figure to which he thinks he is entitled."

 He find that the claim includes proper items for reimbursement. It would not be practical to deny this claim as, no violation of Rule 10. The carrier is obligated to and walling to reimburse for ail actual and necessary expenses submitted in the required manner with proof by proper receipts and vouchers. There is no provision for interest. i

 ale find that the claim for lodging and meals at claimanL's home at Fort' Smith is not for actual necessary expenses within the meaning of Rule 10.

                                                              i

                                                              l

                                                              i l


Form 1 Award No. 6453
 page 3 Docket No. 6286
 2-SLSFLSMW-' 73 I
 I
 A WA R D f
 i
 Claim disposed of as stated in the findings.

                              FATIOFAL PuAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOIARD

                              By Order of Second Division


Attest:- -~7~ a_.: lf-,. ~~'_
        Executive Secretary .


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of Fctruary, 1973.

 f

 I

 (

 R